The two freewills, Old and New.

[childeye]

I hope someone will ponder the following and then comment. I would like to discuss the changing connotations of terms such as repentance, worship, grace, faith, etc.., according to one's theology. Please note the changes in connotations for the words 'responsible', 'freewill' and 'resist' in the following so that you can understand what I mean by changing connotations.

Old Freewill 1.
We can't just blame the devil so we can not take responsibility for our actions, and forgive ourselves as we continue in sin. For to believe the dictionary freewill, is not to necessarily disagree that Satan can cause lustful desires within our flesh, but that freewill is given by God so that we will take responsibility and the blame when we sin. We need our guilt, otherwise we will not correct our course and walk straight. Therefore we must stand firm and resist the temptation by not acting upon it until it finally goes away and prove what is the good in us.

New Freewill 2.
If the devil is able to cause us to sin, then is it a responsible act for us to say he doesn't? Moreover, what if we are blaming others in hypocrisy? Isn't self righteousness the devil too? So isn't it more responsible and honest of us to concede that Satan does cause us to sin? Not for the sake of excusing ourselves, but more for excusing others. For if the devil does indeed cause us to lust, it seems that it would be the more responsible course of action to learn how he accomplishes this, to see the source of wickedness. That way, we can resist him by learning how it is we fall for his deceptions that make us lust and desire in opposition to God. Then we would have a freewill apart from the devil, since the truth which exposes the lies that cause such wicked desires would set us free. And that Truth resides in Christ. This is the freewill I believe in and desire for. A will free from the devil's lusts and desires rather than the choice to sin or not sin. The reason I speak about it, is because it needs to be considered in contrast to the other. I believe we start out in one and end in the other.

Both of these differing concepts of freewill wish to resist the devil, but they do it differently. One claims there is a freewill apart from God, by saying they can resist Satan through their own will's power to choose not to act on the evil desires within. While the other claims a freewill apart from Satan by seeing through Satan's lies that are the cause of the lustful desires.

All scriptural terms change in connotation according to which freewill you believe in, producing different and even opposing meanings and interpretations. The implications of each meaning produces different spirits according to one's outlook.

Applicable scriptures:
James 4:7. seems to be referring to freewill 1. Matthew 23:26 seems to be referring to both. 2 Corinthians 11:3 could be talking about either one. Romans 16:20 seems to be referring to freewill 2. Acts 26:18 seems to be referring to Freewill 2. 1 John 3:9 seems to refer to freewill 2. John 9:39 seems to refer to both. Matthew 7:1-2 seems to refer to Freewill 2. Matthew 7:3 seems to refer to freewill 2.

 

[childeye]

For example: A free will 1 believer is predictably going to say, "I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."... While a freewill 2 believer would counter that, "true worship is drawn out by the object of worship". The terms freely, choose, worship, God, and forced, that are used in statement 1, have therefore all become equivocations if one believes in statement 2.

 

[childeye]

HEY ! Okay, no one's responding. Let's make this simple. Just answer me one simple question. Which one of these opposing statements do you believe to be true, and why?
Freewill 1,"I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."... While a freewill 2 believer would counter that, "true worship is drawn out by the object of worship".

 

[childeye]

HEY ! Okay, no one's responding. Let's make this simple. Just answer me one simple question. Which one of these opposing statements do you believe to be true, and why?
Freewill 1,"I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."... While a freewill 2 believer would counter that, "true worship is drawn out by the object of worship". Or are they the same thing from two different perspectives?

 

[Obadiah]

Perhaps if you would simplify this by picking one of your multiple scriptures in your OP and explain what it means to you regarding one point. I think it's a bit confusing when you post such a long OP covering so many points and then just list your scriptures all a the bottom for us to figure out how you intended to apply them. Perhaps you could simplify this to one term and one scripture you feel describes this term to get started.

 

[childeye]

Perhaps if you would simplify this by picking one of your multiple scriptures in your OP and explain what it means to you regarding one point. I think it's a bit confusing when you post such a long OP covering so many points and then just list your scriptures all a the bottom for us to figure out how you intended to apply them. Perhaps you could simplify this to one term and one scripture you feel describes this term to get started.

Thanks for the help. I appreciate the response.

Matthew 23:26. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. I feel that what Jesus is saying, is that the inside of a person needs to be cleansed of whatever is the source of the uncleanliness and then the outside will be clean by virtue of this. Cleanse the corruption on the inside of a person and their actions will reflect the newness of Spirit. The Pharisee however, cleans only the outside of their person, meaning that their actions are only superficial, since the inside is still not clean.

These are two different ways to clean a person up. I believe the Pharisee view fits a Freewill 1 theology, as described in the op. While the Christ's view is like a Freewill 2 theology described in the op. The are no terms in the scripture that change in the example because this is a parable. The change in connotations appear here, Freewill 1,"I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."... While a freewill 2 believer would counter that, "true worship is drawn out by the object of worship". The words freely, choose, worship, God, and force, spoken by Freewill 1, become equivocations when you believe in freewill 2.

I think this may be too complicated. So I simply asked which way do you believe pertaining to the two contrary statements highlighted in italics. If you still don't understand the OP, Perhaps you could just answer the question, and I may be able to get something started.

 

[childeye]

Boy this is getting hard. I neglected to say that the word cleanse in the parable Matthew 23:26 does indeed change in connotation. There are two types of ways to cleanse, therefore there are two different connotations.

 

[smaller]

I've observed your quest on this particular matter prior. If a will was truly free, then said will would not "internally groan" for what we seek. Would not have to wrestle with an adverse will.

Any present form of "freedom of will" we have does not appear to be able to break past present reality. Paul has directed sights to present reality, that being that we are planted in weakness, corruption, dishonor and a natural body that is subject to all kinds of needs, responsibilities and various desires, both good and bad.

While it may be interesting to define how "free" that is, I might not find it very free whatsoever. There is a certain freedom that does arrive, when we are able to step back from the brink of any particular potential disaster, to divide and separate ourselves from iniquity for example. But the fact of having to step back confronts the facts of present reality. Were we truly free, there would be no such exercises required.

I really have no earthly clue what "freedom" really is, would be or consists of. I am unable to "define" Perfection. And I concluded many years ago that I really don't want to or need to. The Mystery of God can remain A Mystery for me, forever. There is no need to bound or define Him. He is beyond my binding. I prefer to see my self as a "subject." And Him, as The Divine Object. Therefore I see my role, and His in perhaps proper perspective. I do not want to be "like God." If there is any sharing to be done, it comes only from One Direction. And that is not mine to give, but to reflect upon and enjoy, as a subjective "receiver." I am NOT the Giver, but the receiver. I am not the Object, but the subject.

This sight has also made me entirely suspect of any claims by any subject, of what God Is. God can only be known in His Entirety, by Himself, unto Himself, by His Own Definitions, which I don't expect to ever know.

A Being without beginning or ending demands An Eternal Mystery to remain forever. And in that I delight, as a subject. My own freedom gets drawn into this Perpetual Mystery. Certainly in no way similar to Him, but limited by any comparison.

And it's OK. I trust in The Mystery of God, as a subjective engagement.

 

[WIP]

Please provide appropriate Scriptural reference to your statements. See Forum Guidelines.

 

[childeye]

I've observed your quest on this particular matter prior. If a will was truly free, then said will would not "internally groan" for what we seek. Would not have to wrestle with an adverse will.

Any present form of "freedom of will" we have does not appear to be able to break past present reality. Paul has directed sights to present reality, that being that we are planted in weakness, corruption, dishonor and a natural body that is subject to all kinds of needs, responsibilities and various desires, both good and bad.

While it may be interesting to define how "free" that is, I might not find it very free whatsoever. There is a certain freedom that does arrive, when we are able to step back from the brink of any particular potential disaster, to divide and separate ourselves from iniquity for example. But the fact of having to step back confronts the facts of present reality. Were we truly free, there would be no such exercises required.

I really have no earthly clue what "freedom" really is, would be or consists of. I am unable to "define" Perfection. And I concluded many years ago that I really don't want to or need to. The Mystery of God can remain A Mystery for me, forever. There is no need to bound or define Him. He is beyond my binding. I prefer to see my self as a "subject." And Him, as The Divine Object. Therefore I see my role, and His in perhaps proper perspective. I do not want to be "like God." If there is any sharing to be done, it comes only from One Direction. And that is not mine to give, but to reflect upon and enjoy, as a subjective "receiver." I am NOT the Giver, but the receiver. I am not the Object, but the subject.

This sight has also made me entirely suspect of any claims by any subject, of what God Is. God can only be known in His Entirety, by Himself, unto Himself, by His Own Definitions, which I don't expect to ever know.

A Being without beginning or ending demands An Eternal Mystery to remain forever. And in that I delight, as a subject. My own freedom gets drawn into this Perpetual Mystery. Certainly in no way similar to Him, but limited by any comparison.

And it's OK. I trust in The Mystery of God, as a subjective engagement.

Basically you've identified the source of all the connotation changes as dependent on one's subjective view of God and what is perfection. I guess this thread is over.